On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 2:40:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/8/2019 11:21 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 12:35:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/8/2019 12:10 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:13 AM Lawrence Crowell < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: >>>> >>>> As far as I know dispite lots of talk about it I'm STILL the only one >>>> on the list that has actually read Carroll's new book, but he gave an >>>> excellent Google talk about it on Friday so maybe his critics will at >>>> least watch that; after all even an abbreviated Cliff Notes knowledge of a >>>> book is better than no knowledge at all. >>>> >>>> Sean Carroll's Google talk about his new book "Something Deeply Hidden" >>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6FR08VylO4&t=1314s> >>>> >>>> John K Clark >>>> >>> >>> I have read Carroll and Sebens' paper on this, which is more rigorous >>> and less qualitative. I honestly do not have a yay or nay opinion on this. >>> It is something to store away in the mental toolbox. Quantum >>> interpretations are to my thinking unprovable theoretically and not >>> falsifiable empirically. >>> >> >> >> I watched a little of Sean's talk at Google. It is a very slick marketing >> exercise -- reminded me of a con man, or a snake oil salesman. Too slick by >> half. >> >> >> What do you think he's selling? I think Carroll is a good speaker, a >> good popularizer, and a nice guy. I feel fortunate to have him >> representing physics to the public. He is not evangelizing for some >> particular interpretation and he recognizes that there are alternative >> interpretations of QM even though he favors MWI. >> >> Also, he's the only scientist who debated William Lane Craig and won by >> every measure. >> >> Brent >> > > Sean Carroll reminds me more of Alvin Plantinga > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga > > who can take math and pull out God. > > Carroll makes* the big mistake* of a number of physics "popularizers" > today. He takes the mathematical language of a physical theory (or one > version* of that theory, as there are multiple formulations of quantum > theory) and pulls a physical ontology out of his math. > > > That's why it's called an "interpretation". Every physical theory has an > ontology that goes with it's mathematics, otherwise you don't know how to > apply the mathematics. That MWI entails other, unobservable "worlds" is > neither a bug or a feature, it's just one answer to the measurement > problem. If you have a better answer, feel free to state it. > > > > The math is not the territory. > > > * The Schrödinger equation is not the only way to study quantum mechanical > systems and make predictions. The other formulations of quantum mechanics > include matrix mechanics <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_mechanics>, > introduced by Werner Heisenberg > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg>, and the path integral > formulation <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation>, > developed chiefly by Richard Feynman > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman>. Paul Dirac > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac> incorporated matrix mechanics > and the Schrödinger equation into a single formulation. > > The Schrödinger equation provides a way to calculate the wave function of > a system and how it changes dynamically in time. However, the Schrödinger > equation does not directly say *what**, exactly, the wave function is*. > Interpretations > of quantum mechanics > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics> address > questions such as what the relation is between the wave function, the > underlying reality, and the results of experimental measurements. > > > Did you write that, or are you quoting without attribution? Anyway it's > common knowledge on this list. > > Brent >
That's from Wikipedia again (same quote from the Schrödinger equation article posted several times before). That " it's common knowledge on this list" doesn't appear that way at all, where an undisputed catechism is assumed on what is real (QM-wise). I just don't see how Many Worlds ontology tells us "how to apply the mathematics": We don't observe a bunch of worlds, so how can it be applied? Path-integral methods are already used extensively in computational quantum mechanics CQM) and applied in materials science and other application areas. So we know they are useful. Where are the many-world methods used in CQM. @philpthift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6851abb2-eb22-40f4-8c2b-b60209a4a46a%40googlegroups.com.
